RN to sell one of their new carriers??

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, it's pretty serious when a ship crashes .

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...rines_rollout/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...hits_type_23s/

[Blitzen]

You can't really compare the Ocean Class (LPH) with the Invincible class (CVS). The LPH is designed for amphibious assault operations, and littoral warefare, along with the two LPDs (Bulwark and Albion) and while the LPH can carry the Harrier, she can't operate them - she is a helicopter operating platform, with a secondary rol;e as aviation training.

Of the three CVS, one (Invincible) is laid up, leaving Illustrious and Ark Royal, but the shortage is in aircraft to operate from the, The CVF (Future carrier) is designed to provide support for the fixed wing Joint Strike Aircraft.

As a method of power projection, without a land based operating base, the carrier is pretty much unequalled. Apart from the role as a carrier, they also act as a forward campaign HQ. While they are (seemingly) expensive the real cost is in the aircraft to operate from them, and the through life cost in terms of personnel.

Refurbishing the older hulls appears attractive, but the hulls themselves have a finite life, beyound which the cost of refurbishment outweighs the value of the hull, and the hull itself is too small to operate next generation aircraft like the JSF.

Defence is expensive, but it is like an insurance policy - while it may seem expensive, history shows that we run down our armed services at our peril. While current operations in Afghanistan focus on land and airforces, Naval forces have played an important role in both Gulf conflicts, and as an Island Nation, control or our sea lanes is in our vital national interest, aln although our global influence has decreased compared with even 30 years ago, we still have overseas dependancies where we have obligations for defence.

One might arguee if we still require a stragic nuclear deterrent with the cessation of the cold war - and that is probably a more important debate, although with more nations such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly Iran gaining nuclear weapon capability, and the means of delivery, it could be argued that the need for a dterrent is as strong now as it ever has been.

In 1997 HMS Ocean entered the arena. I took part as part of the ships company on the first occassion it went to sea and it was not good. The bow doors were not effective and landing craft could not be successfully deployed.
The ship, although not a substitute for the Invincible Class carriers, was much more versatile once fully operational.
Not only could it carry many more aircraft (Lynx, now Merlin and Harriers), but it could also carry many more men for beach assault (i was in 5 Commando at this time).
The Fearless and Intrepid, although good troop carriers were not fast, and had NOWHERE near the compliment capability of the Ocean Class vessels.

We most certainly DO need an effective Royal Navy.
As someone mentioned earlier (YorkieBen i think), we are an island nation, and as such, IF anything were to happen, we need to protect our shores.
Also, as we have many overseas territories, we need fast effective deterents against aggressors which can mobilise and arrive as fast as possible.

The United Kingdom has THE BEST Navy on this planet and this needs to be maintained.

[Zak33]

The United Kingdom has THE BEST Navy on this planet and this needs to be maintained.

I love pride

We are an island.... we love the sea. It's in our blood.

I disagree with most sentiment on cutting back on Armed Forces spending, because whether we all like it or not, the world is full of bullies who don't take to negotiation well.

Sometimes....sadly often times... we need to spank people. It's harsh but true.

And unless we can mobilize the force of a large hammer to come crashing down very hard and fast on the anvil... we'll get knobbled.

And I don't wanna be knobbled.

The very FACT that we can debate this with total openess in public is a miracle of our ability in modern and hostoric theatres of war.

GO try to debate this subject in Korea online. Or most of China etc etc.

[nichomach]

There are a number of factors here which I think should be considered:
1. The RN have already accepted cuts of about one third in the surface fleet to pay for their bird farms. To not receive them now would be devastating.
2. The cost is a fraction of what tranche 3 of the Typhoon is going to cost us, a spend which if it meant we kept the carriers I'd be happy to forego.
3. The carriers (as noted above by others) will give us capability we can actually use, in the conflicts which we are not only facing now, but are likely to face in the future, rather than paying to bodge aircraft designed to be interceptors into deep-strike bombers (which is all that tranche 3 does) which we can't.
4. It's worth noting that on the only occasions since WW2 where a British fighter has actually shot down an enemy aircraft, it's launched from a carrier to do it.
5. We need a year-round capability if we are to have one at all, and we can only have that with two or more carriers.

[neonplanet40]

I think at this point in time cutting back on military is a huge mistake. When you have huge upcoming superpowers such as china and india who constantly up their budget every year on their navy and other miltary areas. These Carriers as nichomach before has said are severely needed and it is not the time to cut back. Or you will fall behind the other powers making Britain only a minor concern in the international theatre.

The military has already cut back a lot since the end of the cold war which is understandable but the line has to be drawn where cutting back too much makes you weaker. The military now at the minute whats to become smaller but well equipped and still able to cope with whatever needs arise. Combining elements of the Navy and Air Force together which has already happened as we know. Lack of aircraft and the huge waste of money that was put into the Eurofighter haven't helped things.

No one knows what the future holds but in the grand scale of things another major war cannot be out of the question. Or at least a war which Britain needs to be equipped to deal with. Whether it happens or not is irrelevant. The point is has Britain got what it needs to defend and win a war? and does it have an industry in place for rearmament should the need EVER arise?

No point people saying that things are relatively safe now and cuts should be made on defences such as the Navy, Air Force or Trident system. These are the words of fools. Wars in their nature tend to just 'happen' and you have to be ready for them. Thats the whole point of a countrys defence. To skimp now is to hamper your defence and while it may make no difference now it may when its needed most.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I will have to Godwin this thread but perhaps people should remember what happened in the 1930s after the Great War!! This was another time in history when people felt safe and thought it was fine to underfund the military.

Also,like I stated before the military not only employs many people directly but also in the many homegrown companies it deals with.

I wonder if these people who would want to have massive cutbacks to the military would want to be fighting themselves with sub standard crap?? It is easy to say all these things when you are on the comfort of your warm home or pub and you are not on the front-line.

[peterb]

The United Kingdom has THE BEST Navy on this planet and this needs to be maintained.

I love pride

Not just pride - more a statement of fact! But I am truly heartened by many of the comments in this thread.

As Zak said, we are an island nation, and much of our trade is still conducted by sea.

[nichomach]

I wonder if these people who would want to have massive cutbacks to the military would want to be fighting themselves with sub standard crap?? It is easy to say all these things when you are on the comfort of your warm home or pub and you are not on the front-line.

I remember a very silly article by Polly Toynbee suggesting that buying the Eurofighter was opting for a Jaguar option when we really only needed Mondeos; my thought at the time was that generally, in one's Mondeo, one was not being pursued by other Mondeos (and the odd Jaguar) firing Mondeo-seeking missiles at you, which I felt rather weakened the analogy...

[nheather]

It is a difficult call I guess.

For the last 10 or 20 years the west has been involved in what is known as 'asymmetric warfare'.

This means that that the technology on one side is much more advanced than on the other and as a result is not as useful as it's price.

The problem is that weapons platforms take a very long time from conception to operation. A good example is the Eurofighter. Conceived in a time when there was still an Eastern Block threat but delayed and delivered in a time when we are fighting terrorists in streets and mountains. The need for the Eurofighter has largely gone and so has the large customer base that it was anticipating.

So is a carrier force needed. On the whole I would say yes. A carrier force is very potent and mobile. You can quickly park it off the coast of a trouble spot. There is also the concern that as oil reserves dwindle there is going to be a shift in power away from the west and to the east. This could see us facing traditional-style adverseries like Russia and China. No way am I saying we will be at war with them, just to say that the countries that west disagree with will change from terrorist like regimes to major military powers.

Cheers,

Nigel